Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 86 references

A high mutual inclination system around KOI-134 revealed by transit timing variations

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A warm Jupiter's transit signal is predicted to vanish around 2059 because its orbital plane is tilted about 15 degrees from a hidden companion.

desk verdict Rare resonant pair with a large mutual inclination, but the exact angle depends on a model-selection step and an internal inconsistency in the quoted vs adopted elements. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02238 v1 pith:PR7XBR4R submitted 2025-07-03 astro-ph.EP

Emma Nabbie , Chelsea X. Huang , Judith Korth , Hannu Parviainen , Su Wang , Alexander Venner , Robert Wittenmyer , Allyson Bieryla
show 4 more authors
David W. Latham Gongjie Li Douglas N. C. Lin George Zhou
This is my paper
classification astro-ph.EP
keywords transittimingvariationsdurationmutualinclinationmeanmotionresonancewarmJupiternon-transitingcompanionKeplerphotometryexoplanetdynamics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the transiting warm Jupiter KOI-134 b is not alone: the giant 20-hour swings in its transit times and the slow drift in its transit duration are the gravitational fingerprint of a smaller, non-transiting companion locked in the 2:1 mean-motion resonance. Joint modeling of both signals yields a specific three-dimensional architecture: KOI-134 c has about a fifth of Jupiter's mass, and its orbital plane is tilted by about 15 degrees relative to KOI-134 b. That tilt is large enough that KOI-134 b's inclination is changing, and the paper predicts the planet will stop transiting its star around the year 2059. If true, this would be the only known near-resonant planet pair with a high mutual inclination, a configuration that no single formation mechanism easily explains.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing tool is a joint transit-timing and transit-duration dynamical fit: per-epoch Kepler transit times and durations are compared with the outputs of N-body integrations of a two-planet system, with fourteen free parameters including the masses, periods, eccentricities, arguments of periastron, longitudes of node, the inner planet's inclination, mean anomalies, and the impact parameter of the transiting planet. The argument is carried by the resonant angles Theta_e,b and Theta_e,c, defined through the mean longitudes and longitudes of periastron; only the 15-degree solution shows libration of the inner planet's eccentricity resonance, and long-term stability over 10 million years separates it from the 50-degree companion solution. An independent photodynamical model, which fits the full light curves rather than just mid-transit times, reproduces the same system parameters and strengthens the conclusion.

What would settle it

Track KOI-134 b's transits across the next few decades: if the transit signal continues past 2059, or if new transit durations diverge from the posteriors of the 15-degree solution, the mutual-inclination claim is falsified; a radial-velocity detection of a 34-day reflex with amplitude matching a 0.22 Jupiter-mass companion would instead confirm it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the transit timing variations and transit duration variations of KOI-134 b arise from an inner, non-transiting planet at the 2:1 resonance, with best-fit masses of about 1.09 Jupiter masses for KOI-134 b and 0.22 Jupiter masses for KOI-134 c, and a mutual inclination of 15.4 degrees (with uncertainties of about +2.8 and -2.5 degrees). The joint TTV-TDV fit prefers this modest-inclination solution over an equally good fit with roughly 50 degrees of mutual inclination, because the 15-degree solution is stable over 10 million years and its resonant angle librates, while the 50-degree solution ejects the inner planet in under 10,000 years. The paper further claims that KOI-134 b's inclination varies through a range of about 1.2 to 39.5 degrees on an approximately 800-year precession cycle, so the planet currently transits only about 20 percent of the time and is expected to disappear from transit by about 2059. This architecture is presented as a challenge to formation models: disk migration can produce the 2:1 resonance, but when it raises the mutual inclination above 10 degrees it also excites eccentricities much larger than observed, so an additional or alternative dynamical mechanism is needed.

Load-bearing premise

The result hangs on using long-term stability and resonant-angle libration to choose between the equally good 15-degree and 50-degree mutual-inclination solutions, so if those selection criteria fail, or if an unseen body stabilizes the tilted configuration, the inferred architecture could be far more inclined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, KOI-134 joins only a handful of transiting systems with measured mutual inclinations above 10 degrees, and it is the only one known to be near a first-order mean-motion resonance.
  • The predicted disappearance of the transit signal around 2059 is a concrete, checkable forecast for ongoing and future photometric monitoring.
  • The non-transiting KOI-134 c must be included in statistical studies of Kepler multiplanet systems, whose average mutual inclinations of 1 to 2 degrees are based mostly on coplanar transiting pairs.
  • Formation models that produce 2:1 resonances by disk migration need a late-stage inclination-excitation mechanism that preserves the resonance, since simple migration excites too much eccentricity when it raises the inclination.
  • Any future transit observations, including the tentative TESS event, can be compared with the posterior predictions to refine or rule out the adopted solution.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The rejected 50-degree solution fits the light-curve data equally well and is set aside only by stability and resonance criteria, so an unseen third body that stabilizes that configuration could make the true mutual inclination much higher than 15 degrees.
  • If the predicted transit disappearance by 2059 is observed, the system would offer a rare real-time view of resonant inclination dynamics; if it does not happen, the 15-degree architecture is falsified regardless of how well it fits the current data.
  • The system hints that high mutual inclinations may be systematically undercounted among resonant giant-planet pairs, because such systems are preferentially hard to detect when only one planet transits.
  • Similar archival searches of high-TTV Kepler targets could uncover more tilted resonant architectures, making KOI-134 the first of a population rather than an isolated oddity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper analyzes Kepler photometry of KOI-134, a star previously dispositioned as a false positive, and argues that KOI-134 b is a genuine transiting warm Jupiter exhibiting ~20-hour TTVs and ~6-sigma TDVs. Through N-body modeling with REBOUND and an independent photodynamical fit with PyTTV, the authors attribute the signals to a non-transiting inner companion, KOI-134 c, near the 2:1 mean-motion resonance. The adopted solution has KOI-134 b at ~1.09 MJup on a 67.1-day orbit and KOI-134 c at ~0.22 MJup on a 33.95-day orbit with a mutual inclination of ~15.4 degrees, and the authors predict that KOI-134 b will cease transiting around the year 2059. The paper also uses archival RV and AO observations to rule out stellar companions and discusses the formation implications of the high mutual inclination.

Significance. If confirmed, this system would be one of a small number of transiting systems with a measured high mutual inclination and the first near a first-order mean-motion resonance, providing a valuable constraint on planet formation and orbital evolution models. The paper makes good use of the full Kepler light curve, reports TTV and TDV measurements that are visually robust, provides code and data, and makes a falsifiable prediction (transit disappearance) that can be tested with future observations. However, the headline mutual inclination is not uniquely determined by the data: the paper identifies a second, equally good fit with a ~50-degree mutual inclination that is rejected via stability and resonance-libration criteria, and the adopted parameters are internally inconsistent with the quoted mutual inclination. These issues must be resolved before the central claim is fully supported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Results; Table 1] The quoted mutual inclination of 15.4 degrees does not match the adopted best-fit parameters in Table 1. Taking the median elements of the "Non-Photodynamic" column (i_b = 89.58 deg, i_c = 75.0 deg, Omega_b = 33.9 deg, Omega_c = 224 deg), the mutual inclination between the two orbital planes is approximately 18 degrees, not 15.4 degrees. The value 15.4 degrees appears to be consistent with the "Photodynamic" column (i_b = 90.501 deg, i_c = 75.9 deg, Omega_b = 179.99 deg, Omega_c = 176.7 deg), which the table footnote does not identify as the adopted solution. Please clarify how the quoted i_mut was computed and ensure it corresponds to the adopted parameter set.
  2. [Methods: Transit timing and transit duration dynamic modeling; Resonant dynamics] The paper reports two solutions that fit the TTV/TDV data equally well: the adopted ~15-degree mutual-inclination solution and an alternative with a 0.7 MJup companion and ~50-degree mutual inclination. The rejection of the 50-degree solution rests on its dynamical instability in the two-planet model (ejection in <10^4 years) and the absence of libration in the 2:1 eccentricity resonance. These are model-selection priors, not data constraints. In particular, the stability test does not include any additional non-transiting planet, which the RV and AO data do not exclude and which could stabilize the 50-degree solution; and the libration criterion assumes the system is in resonance, which is part of the conclusion. Because the two solutions fit the data equally well, the quoted 15.4-degree value is not a unique outcome of the light-curve data. The paper should quantify the model comparison (e.g., Bayesian evidence, or a stability prior weighted by the system age) and state clearly that the mutual inclination is degenerate unless such priors are adopted.
  3. [Table 1; Photodynamical modeling] The independent PyTTV photodynamical analysis is described as consistent with the adopted solution, but Table 1 shows substantial differences: the eccentricity of KOI-134 b is 0.16+0.02/-0.03 (non-photodynamic) versus 0.05+0.022/-0.020 (photodynamical), and the period of KOI-134 c is 33.95+0.013/-0.020 days versus 32.89 +/- 0.11 days. These differences are significant relative to the quoted uncertainties and affect derived quantities such as the forced eccentricities and the predicted transit-disappearance timescale. The paper should either reconcile these discrepancies within the posteriors or discuss their implications for the mutual inclination claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] "even less are found to be non-coplanar" should read "even fewer are found to be non-coplanar."
  2. [Table 1] The header "Argument of of periastron" contains a duplicated word.
  3. [Supplementary Text: Grid search] In the grid search description, the ranges for omega1 and omega2 are given as 0-320 degrees and 0-240 degrees, respectively, while the MCMC priors later are 0-360 degrees for both; the grid search bounds should cover the full prior range or the discrepancy should be explained.
  4. [Results: TDV description] The qualitative description of the TDV pattern ("slightly increased during the first two thirds ... then decreased") does not capture the epoch-to-epoch scatter visible in Supplementary Table 3; consider a more quantitative summary.
  5. [Search for additional transits in TESS] The text mentions "two candidate transit events in Sector 14 and Sector 54" but then discusses only the Sector 54 event and attributes the Sector 14 event to a momentum dump; please clarify whether the Sector 14 event is a genuine transit candidate or an artifact.
  6. [Methods/Table 1] The paper would benefit from stating the definition of mutual inclination used (i.e., the smaller angle between the two orbital planes) and reporting its value for the rejected 50-degree solution so that readers can reproduce the model-selection step.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mutual inclination is a fitted parameter, and the transit-disappearance forecast is a forward integration of the adopted fit, not a re-fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Per-epoch transit times and durations are measured from external Kepler photometry with batman and emcee; the joint TTV/TDV analysis then fits an N-body model with 14 free parameters using REBOUND. The headline value i_mut = 15.4 deg is a fitted parameter of one branch of that model, and the paper explicitly acknowledges a second branch with i_mut ~ 50 deg that fits the TTV and TDV data equally well. Rejecting that branch on long-term stability and resonance-libration grounds is a model-selection prior, not a circular definition or a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The transit-disappearance statement (around 2059) is produced by integrating the adopted best-fit parameters forward in time, so it is not used to fit those parameters. The only self-citations are methodological: the photodynamical check follows procedures described in Korth et al. 2023 and 2024, and PyTTV is cited as the tool used. These citations are not load-bearing for the central claim, which is constrained by external Kepler photometry and checked against independent photodynamical modeling, TESS data, radial-velocity non-detections, and adaptive-optics imaging. The model-selection dependence on stability and libration criteria is a legitimate scientific assumption and a correctness risk, but it is not circularity under the definitions used here. Score 1 reflects only the presence of minor methodological self-citations that do not support the central result.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central detection rests on fitting a 14-parameter two-planet N-body model to Kepler transit times and durations. The main fitted quantities are the two masses, periods, eccentricities, longitudes, inclinations, and impact parameter. The 15-degree mutual inclination is a fitted parameter selected over a 50-degree alternative by stability and resonance-libration arguments. The stellar parameters and the assumed absence of additional perturbers are background assumptions taken from standard stellar fitting and dynamical modeling practice.

free parameters (5)
  • Mass of KOI-134 b = 1.09(+0.12/-0.08) MJup non-photodynamic; 1.00(+0.25/-0.27) MJup photodynamic
    Fitted to TTV amplitude in the N-body MCMC; the two reported values differ.
  • Mass of KOI-134 c = 0.220(+0.010/-0.011) MJup in Results; 0.257(+0.046/-0.036) MJup in adopted photodynamic column
    Fitted to the TTV/TDV solution; the two reported values are not consistent.
  • Mutual inclination = 15.4(+2.8/-2.5) deg adopted; alternative 50 deg solution fits equally well
    Constrained by TDVs and selected via stability arguments; not a direct measurement.
  • Eccentricities = e_b 0.16(+0.02/-0.03) non-photodynamic vs 0.05(+0.022/-0.020) photodynamic; e_c 0.24(+0.12/-0.03) vs…
    Free parameters in the model; values differ between the two fitting approaches.
  • Orbital periods = P_b 67.1277(+0.0045/-0.0057) d and P_c 33.950(+0.013/-0.020) d non-photodynamic; P_b 67.701(+/-0.017) d and P_c…
    Fitted; the two approaches give different values, especially for KOI-134 c.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The two-planet N-body model with REBOUND/IAS15 and GR corrections correctly reproduces the observed TTV and TDV signals.
    Invoked in Methods, 'Transit timing and transit duration dynamic modeling'; standard for exoplanet dynamics but unverified here.
  • domain assumption The system contains no additional perturbers beyond KOI-134 b and c.
    The N-body fits include only two planets; an unseen third body could alter the TTV/TDV interpretation.
  • ad hoc to paper Long-term stability (10 Myr) and resonance libration are valid criteria for choosing between the two equally good TTV/TDV solutions.
    Used in Methods, 'Resonant dynamics', to reject the 50-degree mutual inclination solution; this is a model-selection assumption, not an observable.
  • domain assumption Stellar mass and radius from SED and isochrone fitting are accurate enough for the N-body integration.
    Stellar parameters are fixed in the N-body model and come from the light-curve and isochrone fit; systematic errors here propagate to planet masses and semimajor axes.
invented entities (1)
  • KOI-134 c independent evidence
    purpose: Innermost non-transiting planet in 2:1 resonance with KOI-134 b, invoked to explain the 20-hour TTVs and ~20-minute TDVs.
    The model assigns it a mass of ~0.22-0.26 MJup and predicts specific future behavior, including b's transit disappearance around 2059 and TESS-visible candidate transits; however, it has no direct detection and the 15-degree mutual inclination is one of two degenerate solutions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A high mutual inclination system around KOI-134 revealed by transit timing variations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PR7XBR4R

@misc{pith2026250702238,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A high mutual inclination system around KOI-134 revealed by transit timing variations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PR7XBR4R}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02238}
}
abstract

Few planetary systems have measured mutual inclinations, and even less are found to be non-coplanar. Observing the gravitational interactions between exoplanets is an effective tool to detect non-transiting companions to transiting planets. Evidence of these interactions can manifest in the light curve through transit timing variations (TTVs) and transit duration variations (TDVs). Through analysis of Kepler photometry and joint TTV-TDV modeling, we confirm the detection of KOI-134 b, a transiting planet with mass and size similar to Jupiter on a period of ~67 days, and find that it exhibits high TTVs (~20-hr amplitude) and significant TDVs. We explain these signals with the presence of an innermost non-transiting planet in 2:1 resonance with KOI-134 b. KOI-134 c has a mass $M = 0.220^{+0.010}_{-0.011} M_\text{Jup}$ and a moderately-high mutual inclination with KOI-134 b of $i_\text{mut} = 15.4_{-2.5}^{+2.8}{^\circ}$. Moreover, the inclination variations of KOI-134 b are so large that the planet is predicted to stop transiting in about 100 years. This system architecture cannot be easily explained by any one formation mechanism, with other dynamical effects needed to excite the planets' mutual inclination while still preserving their resonance.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Rivera, E. J. et al. The Lick-Carnegie Exoplanet Survey: a Uranus-Mass Fourth Planet for GJ 876 in an Extrasolar Laplace Configuration. Astrophys. J. 719, 890–899 (2010)

    2010

  2. [2]

    Sanchis-Ojeda, R. et al. Alignment of the stellar spin with the orbits of a three- planet system. Nature 487, 449–453 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    The Detection and Characterization of a Nontransiting Planet by Transit Timing Variations

    Nesvorn´ y, D.et al. The Detection and Characterization of a Nontransiting Planet by Transit Timing Variations. Science 336, 1133 (2012)

    2012

  4. [4]

    Huber, D. et al. Stellar Spin-Orbit Misalignment in a Multiplanet System.Science 342, 331–334 (2013)

    2013

  5. [5]

    Almenara, J. M. et al. Absolute masses and radii determination in multiplane- tary systems without stellar models. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 453, 2644–2652 19 Fig. 5 The population of near-MMR multi-planet systems with giant planets. Confirmed multi-planet systems with a giant planet, where at least one pair of orbital periods are near a first-order reson...

    2015

  6. [6]

    T., Fabrycky, D

    Hamann, A., Montet, B. T., Fabrycky, D. C., Agol, E. & Kruse, E. K2-146: Dis- covery of Planet c, Precise Masses from Transit Timing, and Observed Precession. Astron. J. 158, 133 (2019)

    2019

  7. [7]

    Johnson, M. C. et al. An Aligned Orbit for the Young Planet V1298 Tau b. Astron. J. 163, 247 (2022)

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Feinstein, A. D. et al. H-alpha and Ca II Infrared Triplet Variations During a Transit of the 23 Myr Planet V1298 Tau c. Astron. J. 162, 213 (2021)

    work page 2021

Show all 86 references
  1. [9]

    & Tremaine, S

    Goldreich, P. & Tremaine, S. Disk-satellite interactions. Astrophys. J. 241, 425–441 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    Lissauer, J. J. et al. Architecture and Dynamics of Kepler’s Candidate Multiple Transiting Planet Systems. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 197, 8 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Steffen, J. H. et al. Five Kepler Target Stars That Show Multiple Transiting Exoplanet Candidates. Astrophys. J. 725, 1226–1241 (2010). 20

    2010

  4. [12]

    & Margot, J.-L

    Fang, J. & Margot, J.-L. Are Planetary Systems Filled to Capacity? A Study Based on Kepler Results. Astrophys. J. 767, 115 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Fabrycky, D. C. et al. Architecture of Kepler’s Multi-transiting Systems. II. New Investigations with Twice as Many Candidates. Astrophys. J. 790, 146 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    & Weidenschilling, S

    Marzari, F. & Weidenschilling, S. J. Eccentric Extrasolar Planets: The Jumping Jupiter Model. Icarus 156, 570–579 (2002)

    2002

  7. [15]

    B., Matsumura, S

    Chatterjee, S., Ford, E. B., Matsumura, S. & Rasio, F. A. Dynamical Outcomes of Planet-Planet Scattering. Astrophys. J. 686, 580–602 (2008)

    2008

  8. [16]

    & Tremaine, S

    Juri´ c, M. & Tremaine, S. Dynamical Origin of Extrasolar Planet Eccentricity Distribution. Astrophys. J. 686, 603–620 (2008)

    2008

  9. [17]

    Dawson, R. I. & Chiang, E. A class of warm Jupiters with mutually inclined, apsidally misaligned close friends. Science 346, 212–216 (2014)

    2014

  10. [18]

    McArthur, B. E. et al. New Observational Constraints on the υ Andromedae System with Data from the Hubble Space Telescope and Hobby-Eberly Telescope. Astrophys. J. 715, 1203–1220 (2010)

    2010

  11. [19]

    Dawson, R. I. et al. Large Eccentricity, Low Mutual Inclination: The Three- dimensional Architecture of a Hierarchical System of Giant Planets. Astrophys. J. 791, 89 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Mills, S. M. & Fabrycky, D. C. Kepler-108: A Mutually Inclined Giant Planet System. Astron. J. 153, 45 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    & Liu, S.-F

    Rein, H. & Liu, S.-F. REBOUND: an open-source multi-purpose N-body code for collisional dynamics. Astron. Astrophys. 537, A128 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    Korth, J. et al. TOI-1130: A photodynamical analysis of a hot Jupiter in resonance with an inner low-mass planet. Astron. Astrophys. 675, A115 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Korth, J. et al. TOI-1408: Discovery and Photodynamical Modeling of a Small Inner Companion to a Hot Jupiter Revealed by Transit Timing Variations. Astrophys. J. Lett. 971, L28 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Ricker, G. R. et al. Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite (TESS). J. Astron. Telesc. Instrum. Syst. 1, 014003 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    Dawson, R. I. et al. TOI-216b and TOI-216 c: Two Warm, Large Exoplanets in or Slightly Wide of the 2:1 Orbital Resonance. Astron. J. 158, 65 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Dawson, R. I. et al. Precise Transit and Radial-velocity Characterization of a Resonant Pair: The Warm Jupiter TOI-216c and Eccentric Warm Neptune TOI- 216b. Astron. J. 161, 161 (2021). 21

    2021

  19. [27]

    & Flock, M

    Nesvorn´ y, D., Chrenko, O. & Flock, M. TOI-216: Resonant Constraints on Planet Migration. Astrophys. J. 925, 38 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    KOI-142, The King of Transit Variations, is a Pair of Planets near the 2:1 Resonance

    Nesvorn´ y, D.et al. KOI-142, The King of Transit Variations, is a Pair of Planets near the 2:1 Resonance. Astrophys. J. 777, 3 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Lithwick, Y., Xie, J. & Wu, Y. Extracting Planet Mass and Eccentricity from TTV Data. Astrophys. J. 761, 122 (2012)

    2012

  22. [30]

    M., Payne, M

    Deck, K. M., Payne, M. & Holman, M. J. First-order Resonance Overlap and the Stability of Close Two-planet Systems. Astrophys. J. 774, 129 (2013)

    2013

  23. [31]

    Murray, C. D. & Dermott, S. F. Solar System Dynamics , Cambridge University Press (1999)

    1999

  24. [32]

    Thommes, E. W. & Lissauer, J. J. Resonant Inclination Excitation of Migrating Giant Planets. Astrophys. J. 597, 566–580 (2003)

    2003

  25. [33]

    & Nelson, R

    Cresswell, P. & Nelson, R. P. Three-dimensional simulations of multiple pro- toplanets embedded in a protostellar disc. Astron. Astrophys. 482, 677–690 (2008)

    2008

  26. [34]

    Jenkins, J. M. et al. Overview of the Kepler Science Processing Pipeline. Astrophys. J. Lett. 713, L87–L91 (2010)

    2010

  27. [35]

    Coughlin, J. L. et al. Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler. VII. The First Fully Uniform Catalog Based on the Entire 48-month Data Set (Q1-Q17 DR24). Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 224, 12 (2016)

    2016

  28. [36]

    Borucki, W. J. et al. Characteristics of Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler. II. Analysis of the First Four Months of Data. Astrophys. J. 736, 19 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Thompson, S. E. et al. Planetary Candidates Observed by Kepler. VIII. A Fully Automated Catalog with Measured Completeness and Reliability Based on Data Release 25. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 235, 38 (2018)

    2018

  30. [38]

    Bryson, S. T. et al. The Kepler Certified False Positive Table. Kepler Science Document KSCI-19093-003, id. 12. Edited by Michael R. Haas and Natalie M. Batalha (2017)

    2017

  31. [39]

    Vanderburg, A. et al. A Habitable-zone Earth-sized Planet Rescued from False Positive Status. Astrophys. J. Lett. 893, L27 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    F˝ ur´ esz, G., Szentgyorgyi, A. H. & Meibom, S. Precision of radial velocity surveys using multiobject spectrographs — experiences with hectochelle 287–289 (2008)

    2008

  33. [41]

    Zhou, G. et al. A Well-aligned Orbit for the 45 Myr-old Transiting Neptune DS Tuc Ab. Astrophys. J. Lett. 892, L21 (2020). 22

    2020

  34. [42]

    Vogt, S. S. et al. Crawford, D. L. & Craine, E. R. (eds)HIRES: the high-resolution echelle spectrometer on the Keck 10-m Telescope. (eds Crawford, D. L. & Craine, E. R.) Instrumentation in Astronomy VIII , Vol. 2198 of Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) ...

    1994

  35. [43]

    G., MacQueen, P., Sneden, C

    Tull, R. G., MacQueen, P., Sneden, C. & Lambert, D. L. Pyper, D. M. & Angione, R. J. (eds) The McDonald 2.7-in Echelle Spectrometer . (eds Pyper, D. M. & Angione, R. J.) Optical Astronomy from the Earth and Moon , Vol. 55 of Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Serie...

    1994

  36. [44]

    Buchhave, L. A. et al. An abundance of small exoplanets around stars with a wide range of metallicities. Nature 486, 375–377 (2012)

    2012

  37. [45]

    Valenti, J. A. & Piskunov, N. Spectroscopy made easy: A new tool for fitting observations with synthetic spectra. Astron. Astrophys. Suppl. 118, 595–603 (1996)

    1996

  38. [46]

    Baranec, C. et al. Bringing the Visible Universe into Focus with Robo-AO. J. Vib. Eng. 72, 50021 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Baranec, C. et al. High-efficiency Autonomous Laser Adaptive Optics. Astrophys. J. Lett. 790, L8 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    Ziegler, C. et al. Robo-AO Kepler Planetary Candidate Survey. III. Adaptive Optics Imaging of 1629 Kepler Exoplanet Candidate Host Stars. Astron. J. 153, 66 (2017)

    2017

  41. [49]

    R., Huber, D

    Tayar, J., Claytor, Z. R., Huber, D. & van Saders, J. A Guide to Realistic Uncertainties on the Fundamental Properties of Solar-type Exoplanet Host Stars. Astrophys. J. 927, 31 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    Eastman, J. D. et al. EXOF ASTv2: A public, generalized, publication-quality exoplanet modeling code. arXiv e-prints arXiv:1907.09480 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S. & Sinukoff, E. RadVel: The Radial Velocity Modeling Toolkit. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130, 044504 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    W., Lang, D

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: The MCMC Hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 125, 306 (2013)

    2013

  45. [53]

    batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python

    Kreidberg, L. batman: BAsic Transit Model cAlculatioN in Python. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 127, 1161 (2015)

    2015

  46. [54]

    Murphy, S. J. An examination of some characteristics of Kepler short- and long- cadence data. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422, 665–671 (2012)

    2012

  47. [55]

    Choi, J. et al. Mesa Isochrones and Stellar Tracks (MIST). I. Solar-scaled Models. Astrophys. J. 823, 102 (2016). 23

    2016

  48. [56]

    Green, G. M. dustmaps: A Python interface for maps of interstellar dust. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 695 (2018)

    2018

  49. [57]

    J., Finkbeiner, D

    Schlegel, D. J., Finkbeiner, D. P. & Davis, M. Maps of Dust Infrared Emission for Use in Estimation of Reddening and Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation Foregrounds. Astrophys. J. 500, 525–553 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    Schlafly, E. F. & Finkbeiner, D. P. Measuring Reddening with Sloan Digital Sky Survey Stellar Spectra and Recalibrating SFD. Astrophys. J. 737, 103 (2011)

    2011

  51. [59]

    Kipping, D. M. Efficient, uninformative sampling of limb darkening coefficients for two-parameter laws. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 435, 2152–2160 (2013)

    2013

  52. [60]

    & Mall´ en-Ornelas, G

    Seager, S. & Mall´ en-Ornelas, G. A Unique Solution of Planet and Star Parameters from an Extrasolar Planet Transit Light Curve. Astrophys. J. 585, 1038–1055 (2003)

    2003

  53. [61]

    & Spiegel, D

    Rein, H. & Spiegel, D. S. IAS15: a fast, adaptive, high-order integrator for gravi- tational dynamics, accurate to machine precision over a billion orbits. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 446, 1424–1437 (2015)

    2015

  54. [62]

    Kipping, D. M. Investigations of approximate expressions for the transit duration. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 407, 301–313 (2010)

    2010

  55. [63]

    Characterization of extrasolar multi-planet systems by transit tim- ing variation

    Korth, J. Characterization of extrasolar multi-planet systems by transit tim- ing variation . Ph.D. thesis, Universit¨ at zu K¨ oln (2020). URL https://kups.ub. uni-koeln.de/11289/

    2020

  56. [64]

    & Vokrouhlick´ y, D

    Nesvorn´ y, D. & Vokrouhlick´ y, D. Dynamics and Transit Variations of Resonant Exoplanets. Astrophys. J. 823, 72 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    Lithwick, Y. & Wu, Y. Resonant Repulsion of Kepler Planet Pairs. Astrophys. J. Lett. 756, L11 (2012)

    2012

  58. [66]

    Aarseth, S. J. Gravitational N-Body Simulations (2003)

    2003

  59. [67]

    H., Naoz, S., Li, G

    Faridani, T. H., Naoz, S., Li, G. & Inzunza, N. Let’s Sweep: The Effect of Evolving J 2 on the Resonant Structure of a Three-planet System. Astrophys. J. 956, 90 (2023)

    2023

  60. [68]

    & Inzunza, N

    Faridani, T., Naoz, S., Li, G., Rice, M. & Inzunza, N. More Likely Than You Think: Inclination-Driving Secular Resonances are Common in Known Exoplanet Systems. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2406.09359 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Nagasawa, M., Lin, D. N. C. & Ida, S. Eccentricity Evolution of Extrasolar Multiple Planetary Systems Due to the Depletion of Nascent Protostellar Disks. Astrophys. J. 586, 1374–1393 (2003). 24

    2003

  62. [70]

    J., Kratter, K

    Petrovich, C., Mu˜ noz, D. J., Kratter, K. M. & Malhotra, R. A Disk-driven Resonance as the Origin of High Inclinations of Close-in Planets. Astrophys. J. Lett. 902, L5 (2020)

    2020

  63. [71]

    Huang, C. X. et al. Photometry of 10 Million Stars from the First Two Years of TESS Full Frame Images: Part II. Res. Notes AAS 4, 206 (2020)

    2020

  64. [72]

    & Mazeh, T

    Kov´ acs, G., Zucker, S. & Mazeh, T. A box-fitting algorithm in the search for periodic transits. Astron. Astrophys. 391, 369–377 (2002)

    2002

  65. [73]

    V ARTOOLS: Light Curve Analysis Program

    Hartman, J. V ARTOOLS: Light Curve Analysis Program. Astrophysics Source Code Library, record ascl:1208.016 (2012)

    2012

  66. [74]

    Holczer, T. et al. Transit Timing Observations from Kepler. IX. Catalog of the Full Long-cadence Data Set. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 225, 9 (2016). 25 Supplementary Text Constraining Stellar Parameters with ARIADNE To obtain more precise stellar characterization, we constructe...

    2016

  67. [75]

    Tonry, J. L. et al. The Pan-STARRS1 Photometric System. Astrophys. J. 750, 99 (2012)

    2012

  68. [76]

    Gaia Data Release 3: Summary of the content and survey properties

    Gaia Collaboration et al. Gaia Data Release 3: Summary of the content and survey properties. arXiv e-prints arXiv:2208.00211 (2022)

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Skrutskie, M. F. et al. The Two Micron All Sky Survey (2MASS). Astron. J. 131, 1163–1183 (2006)

    2006

  70. [78]

    Wright, E. L. et al. The Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE): Mission Description and Initial On-orbit Performance. Astron. J. 140, 1868–1881 (2010)

    2010

  71. [79]

    Vines, J. I. & Jenkins, J. S. ARIADNE: measuring accurate and precise stellar parameters through SED fitting. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 513, 2719–2731 (2022)

    2022

  72. [80]

    Husser, T.-O. et al. Astrophysics A new extensive library of PHOENIX stellar atmospheres. A&A 553, A6 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    & Freytag, B

    Allard, F., Homeier, D. & Freytag, B. Johns-Krull, C., Browning, M. K. & West, A. A. (eds) Model Atmospheres From Very Low Mass Stars to Brown Dwarfs . (eds Johns-Krull, C., Browning, M. K. & West, A. A.) 16th Cambridge Workshop on Cool Stars, Stellar Systems, and the Sun , Vo...

    2011

  74. [82]

    ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid

    Kurucz, R. ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. ATLAS9 Stellar Atmosphere Programs and 2 km/s grid. Kurucz CD-ROM No. 13. Cambridge 13 (1993)

    1993

  75. [83]

    & Kurucz, R

    Castelli, F. & Kurucz, R. L. Piskunov, N., Weiss, W. W. & Gray, D. F. (eds) New Grids of ATLAS9 Model Atmospheres. (eds Piskunov, N., Weiss, W. W. & Gray, D. F.) Modelling of Stellar Atmospheres , Vol. 210, A20 (2003). astro-ph/0405087

    2003 arXiv

  76. [84]

    The Gaia mission

    Gaia Collaboration et al. The Gaia mission. Astron. Astrophys. 595, A1 (2016)

    2016

  77. [85]

    Lindegren, L. et al. Gaia Early Data Release 3. Parallax bias versus magnitude, colour, and position. Astron. Astrophys. 649, A4 (2021)

    2021

  78. [86]

    J., Petigura, E

    Fulton, B. J., Petigura, E. A., Blunt, S. & Sinukoff, E. RadVel: The Radial Velocity Modeling Toolkit. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac. 130, 044504 (2018). 32

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.